Thank you (all) very much for answering so promptly!
So it seems at least to be consesus, that the definition in the actual HTTP/1.1
document is obsolete :( , but since the terms seem to be used consistently
there, this does not much harm to the document itself.
I'm writing on a text covering some parts of HTTP and CN and I don't want
to use the terms "wrongly".
On Tue, Apr 06, 1999 at 06:52:48AM -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> >After reading the spec for a while I suspect that
> >every possible entity from a given resource is a
> >"variant" and if content negotiation comes into play
> >it is termed "representation" as well.
>
> Nope, that's backwards. Each possible entity from a resource is
> a "representation" of that resource at the time the message originated.
> A representation is a variant if, at origination time, the set of
> possible representations has a membership greater than one. It is called
> a variant because the chosen representation varies based on the request
> parameters (content negotiation).
>
So the different possible entities produced by some CGI script (maybe
including the remote IP address) would be termed "variant" as well, and this
could be considered a special case of content negotiation? (I know this sounds
theoretically, but this kind of questions are the ones that help me most)
Thanks a lot
Jacob
> ...